1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

US threatens war in the Persian Gulf

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by Stalin, Jan 2, 2012.

  1. Stalin

    Stalin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    9
    The Obama administration’s bellicose stance towards Iran is setting the stage for a dangerous slide towards war in the Persian Gulf. Having provoked Tehran with legislation for what amounts to an oil embargo, the US is threatening Iran with military action if it retaliates by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz.

    The press immediately added fuel to the flames by backing Washington and vilifying the Iranian regime. An editorial in the New York Times on Thursday fully supported the Obama administration’s threat of military action against any Iranian attempt to block the Persian Gulf. The editorial condemned Iran for “its recklessness and its contempt for international law,” declaring, “This is not a government any country should want to see acquire nuclear weapons.”

    Other sections of the media went one step further, giving voice to the clamour in ruling circles in the US and Israel for a pre-emptive attack on Iran to destroy its nuclear and military facilities. The Wall Street Journal editorial seized on the tensions over the Strait of Hormuz to warn of the dangers of an Iranian regime “fortified by a nuclear threat,” concluding that it would be “better to act now to stop Iran.”

    The cynicism is staggering. Having waged wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq and backed the NATO bombing of Libya, the US is now deliberately and recklessly raising tensions in the Persian Gulf by threatening severe penalties against any foreign company doing business with Iran’s central bank, thereby effectively blocking Iranian oil exports. It is hardly surprising that Tehran has reacted to an act of economic war that would collapse its already fragile economy.

    The US and Israel are already engaged in a dirty covert war against Iran’s nuclear and missile programs that involves computer viruses, bombings and assassinations. Any one of these illegal acts of sabotage and murder could have precipitated a slide into military conflict. The US has not only drawn up its own detailed war plans, but is arming its allies in the Gulf against Iran. The White House gave great media prominence on Thursday to a huge $30 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, including 84 of the latest F-15SA fighter aircraft.

    As for the Iranian “nuclear threat,” it is necessary to recall the lies about WMDs that were used to justify the criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003. The modus operandi of the Obama administration, acting with the bipartisan support of Congress, is no different. Dubious and dated “evidence” is being deliberately distorted and magnified, with the complicity of the new International Atomic Energy Agency chief, Yukiya Amano, into claims that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Tehran’s denials are dismissed out of hand.

    more at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/pers-d31.shtml

    Comrade Stalin
     
  2. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,848
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Wandering around
    You say that like its a bad thing !

    But I suppose Obama does need a war to gin up a need to borrow recklessly and institute dramatic new taxation. Given that Iran can't put up much resistance war-wise its easy enough to wrap up leaving the new taxes which are the goal.
     
  3. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,499
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    Way Down South
    And i thought liberals dont believe in using violance. I thought left winged liberals dont believe in going to war? Maybe Liberals are learning something new now. There is hope for them to mature!
     
  4. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,499
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    Way Down South
    Gee i wonder what the New York times and the elite media has to say about Obama now? Should Nancy Pelosi anounce her candidacy for president of the united states?
     
  5. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,848
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Wandering around
    anything is possible but I wouldn't hold my breath.
     
  6. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    726
    Iran's nuclear facilities hit by another virus? too bad, so sad

    Dirty Deeds: Iranian nuclear program hit by 'AC/DC virus'?
     
  7. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,848
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Wandering around
  8. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,499
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    Way Down South
    BTW Wheres our pal Stalin?
     
  9. ThirdTerm

    ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    The Motherland
    Romney called for the US to insist that Iran cease all enrichment of uranium rather than limit it to 5% as the Obama administration indicated and demanding a full suspension of any enrichment activities would satisfy Israel because that was what Netanyahu demanded but it would make negotiations with Iran more difficult. Some evidence presented in the IAEA report is somewhat dubious but the Obama administration has no intention of pushing Iran into war.
     
  10. Johnny Tremain

    Johnny Tremain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,307
    Likes Received:
    188
    While many might disagree--Thank God in this country--"things military" are pretty much left TO the military.
    Presidents just rubber stamp things--which sometimes gives them a bump in one way or another.
    If the military takes a strong stance--it's a rare president that would stand in the way.
    And the military does not like that--and they can hinder you--regardless of your office--including the top spot.
    Your political favor can well be decided by their support--or lack thereof.
    Just the facts of life.
     
  11. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,848
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Wandering around

    unless the president is a democrat. in those cases they attempt to micromanage with uniformly bad results. at least its been this way since Kennedy though FDR was guilty as well to a degree.
     
  12. mkbashar1979

    mkbashar1979 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    2
    American president, political leaders and arms business man need a new war to win election and business.
     
  13. Johnny Tremain

    Johnny Tremain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,307
    Likes Received:
    188
    Foreign Propaganda.
    Do better than this.
     
  14. Stalin

    Stalin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    9
    Fraternal Greetings Comrade.

    I have been busy with my transport company securing new work, which I have done and have
    returned for the comedy olympics that are held every four years.

    Comrade Stalin
     
    dogtowner likes this.
  15. Stalin

    Stalin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    9
    Things have moved on a bit since the start of the year

    "..
    Should the U.S. actually take Benjamin Netanyahu’s advice and attack Iran, don’t expect a few sorties flown by a couple of fighter jocks. Setting back Iran’s nuclear efforts will need to be an all-out effort, with squadrons of bombers and fighter jets, teams of commandos, rings of interceptor missiles and whole Navy carrier strike groups — plus enough drones, surveillance gear, tanker aircraft and logistical support to make such a massive mission go. And all of it, at best, would buy the U.S. and Israel another decade of a nuke-free Iran.

    There’s been a lot of loose talk and leaked tales about what an attack on Iran might ultimately entail. Anthony Cordesman, one of Washington’s best-connected defense analysts, has put together a remarkably detailed inventory of what it would take to strike Iran (.pdf), cataloging everything from the number of bombers required to the types of bombs they ought to carry. He analyzes both Israeli and American strikes, both nuclear and not. He examines possible Iranian counterattacks, and ways to neutralize them. It leads Cordesman to a two-fold conclusion:

    * “Israel does not have the capability to carry out preventive strikes that could do more than delay Iran’s efforts for a year or two.” Despite the increasingly sharp rhetoric coming out of Jerusalem, the idea of Israel launching a unilateral attack is almost as bad as allowing Tehran to continue its nuclear work unchallenged. It would invite wave after wave of Iranian counterattacks — by missile, terrorist, and boat — jeopardizing countries throughout the region. It would wreak havoc with the world’s oil supply. And that’s if Israel even manages to pull the mission off — something Cordesman very much doubts.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/iran-war-plan/
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice